3. What is the relation between politics and globalization?

Regarding political globalization, it concerns an approach to the social world that stresses postnational and transnational processes as well as a consciousness of the compresses nature of space and time. It is natural to think that democracy has been spread based on the parliamentary nationstate after the collapse of the Soviet Union by political globalization. The first dimension of political globalization is the geopolitics of global power. The second one is that it refers to the rise of global normative culture which includes the rights of individual and environmental concerns. The third one is polycentric networks which forms of nonterritorial politics. We can examine those three dimensions with for examples.

The first one is the transformation of the nation-state, nationality and citizenship. The question of the power states own has come up with political globalization, and the result is that states have to share sovereignty with other parts. However, states are more flexible in responding to globalization than nations with the result of which globalization has exercised pressure. It seems that nation and state have chosen to follow different way of dealing with globalization. The second one is the transformation of the public sphere and communication. The public sphere is the site of politics. The global is not outside the social world but it is inside it in numerous ways. So it is possible to see political communication in the public sphere as increasingly framed by global issues since the concept of public sphere has now moved into a wider view of cosmopolitan. The third one is the centrality of civil society. Global civil society is expected to resolve contradictory tendencies between the tendency of globalization to homogenize and the increasing emphasis on and respect for difference, and within the individuating power of globalization. Although it commonly means NGO-led activities, it is arguable whether civil society should be seen as a cohesive political realm, or it is better understood as a convenient umbrella term for a range of social movements and new social movements. The last one is about the transformation of spaces and borders. It is easy to associate globalization with the image of a ‘borderless world’, ‘global village’, and ‘fragile earth’. If we rethink the space and borders in the global knowledge economy and the networked society, we could reach that space is constitutive of social and political relations.

What I think about politics is that it exists to help people to live in a way that they want to achieve peacefully other than keeping power of it. With that being said, I insist that political globalization should be considered in the same way. The only difference is the size and the number of governments joined and it should be developed in a way for everybody in the world. However, it might just be an ideal concept of not only political, but also every aspect of globalization. Each country is not equal, under the two most powerful actors, and it could be really hard for everyone to make an effort for politically the globalized world. The good thing to consider is that though we are at least trying with like UN. I am really curious to see what political globalization would become and how that would affect our lives, especially in a sense of each country’s autonomy and whether they can be treated equally in the world. 

[TED TALK] Chrystia Freeland : The rise of the new global super-rich

I have one TED Talk that I would like to share with you guys since we are all learning globalization. I don't necessary agree with her 100%, but it may be good to listen to what she says and think about it for a minute.

It's about how the gap between the rich and the poor has been increased internationally through economic and technical globalization, and how it would affect our life. We've all learned that globalization has contributed to decrease absolute poverty, but relative poverty actually is rising.

http://on.ted.com/Plutocrats

The orgin of "the early dawn prayer ceremony".

"The early dawn prayer ceremony"

The early dawn prayer ceremony can only be seen in Korea. In the past time, about 1900s, an elder of a church in Pyeongyang, Sun-ju Gil, started to pray in the time of early dawn about his country's hardship - the Japanese occupation. This ceremony became popular and many people woke themselves up in the early morning and started to pray together by gathering in their churches. This special service went down to posterity and settled down as a representative Korean christianity character.

2008045489 Onestar Lim

[W2] Relation between culture and globalization

It is little bit hard to define cultural globalization since there are lots to consider such as economical, religious,etc. According to Wikipedia, Globalization (or globalisation) is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.  Advances in transportation and telecommunications infrastructure, including the rise of the telegraph and its posterity the Internet, are major factors in globalization, generating further interdependence of economic and cultural activities.As we can see in this definition, culture is already related to globalization.
I don't agree with Clifford Geertz which he was saying 'Culture is not a power, something to which social events can be casually attributed' if I understood it correctly. I think by causally attributed, it can be a power. For example,
Jewish people has the power of enrolling in America's economy in variety of fields. Their thoughts, religion and other fields in capital things they earend from thoughts made a big power in America. We can say Jewish people has a big part of America's economical(?) system which is 'Power' in this time.
It was an interesting view that increasing global connectivity can be called the Third World. And some people understand globalization as a certain kind of culture's boundary. such as Americanism, westertnization. It is not quiet correct way to view connection between globalization and culture. than what else could be? I'm little bit confused about what I said above the article about Jewish people. I think it's a kind of cultural globallzation because many Jewish people are acting in variety of fields I think they are helping cultural globalization. did I understand it right?

Blog2. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GLOBALIZATION AND CULTURE by sanha Lee

W2. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GLOBALIZATION AND CULTURE



1)Today, people are creating more globally connected world than even 20 years ago.
To understand globalization  as a generalized process of increasing connectedness is
helpful us consider the multidimensional complexity of the process.
To clarify the relative sphere, it is important to study the economic sphere.
The economic sphere is powerful in globalization and also it affects the global culture.


2)I found that deterritorialization is the concept which is around us and familiar to m and the phenomenon of deterritorialization arises from a complex set of economic, political and technological factors.


3)I thought that globalization makes the world more convenient.
Because one global culture could help people understand each other and
make the feeling of solidarity. But also there must be disadvantages.
I want to discuss the topic like this considering the relationship between
globalization and culture.

The relationship between culture and globalization.

1) John Tomlinson was talking about both globalization and culture, and also its relationship. He mentioned that culture is a dimension in which globalization both has its effects and simultaneously is generated and shaped. Moreover, he introduced a speculation that the globalization will lead us to a unified global culture. Through explaining this he came out with many sociologists' concepts.

2) Almost every concept introduced by this essay was fresh to me. Actually, the term 'cosmopolitanism' was familiar to me because of the fashion brand name, but the real meaning of that was a pretty new for myself.


3) In the latest class, we talked about 'remix'. It is made of copy, transform, and combine. Remix is a very well-known term in the music industry but the exact identification of the term was not popular among us. There is another term that has a closest meaning to 'remix', and that is 'remake'. Musicians use both words as a synonym. 
 Since television audition programs got popular in Korea, some odd habits were occurred throughout the public. When a new music appears, people evaluate it as if they are a judge and it led to a funny phenomenon that almost every new released songs were accused to a plagiarism. However, this hot debates on online were somewhat useless fights because almost 9 out of 10 doubts were invalid assertions. Many trials were held and charges overissued in music industries. One of the well-known cases was the trial between a singer JYP and a composer Sin-il Kim. Kim sued JYP for a plagiarism of his song, however, the funniest thing is that both of their songs' chord work is similar to the song 'Officially missing you'. This is the representative case of how people can act when they cannot understand 'remix'. There is an English proverb saying that remix is an irresistible phenomenon: There is nothing new under the sun. While looking at the words, a sudden thought came up to me. Is there really a single thing cannot be 'created'? If yes, what can be defined as 'creation'? Is 'creating' is only for the God?


2008045489 Onestar Lim

what is the relation between culture and globalization?

what is the relation between culture and globalization?

1. The most simple way to define 'Globalizaion' is to say that it is a complex, accelerating, integrating process of global connectivity. This global connectivity includes not only national aspects but also personal aspects. We can get some photos and videos from friends who live other countries if we connect up our internet right now. And these influences of globalization also have an effect on our world. We already know we can't avoid it. However John Tomlinson asserted we must resist the temptation to attributing it with causal primacy in the globalization process. He said there is two reasons to previse it. First, resist the temptation to economic reductionism is that it operates on an unrealistically narrow conception of the economic. And the second reason is that it distorts our understanding of the sphere of culture. There is a danger that brings out like 'cultural imperialism', 'Americanization' or 'Westernization', or as the spread of a global capitalist-consumerist monoculture. In conclusion, Globalization might destroy some unique cultures.

2. We learned that is very difficult to create something completely new in our lesson. It reminds me ‘cultural toadyism’. We should accept globalization as a way to inspire for something new. Blind accepts can be like a poison to our culture.

3. I’m still confused with the boundary system of Remixing. I have doubts about whether how much effect the legal device about it.

Culture Globalization
  -"What is relationship between culture and globalization?"

1. Understanding globalization as a generalized process of increasing connectedness helps us to keep in mind the multidimensional complexity of the process.  But there nonetheless remain a good many tacit assumptions as to the relative importance of each of these dimensions.  We must resist the temptation to attribute it with causal primacy in the globalization process.  There are several reasons for this.  First, we aren't dealing with straght forward empirical judgements about what specific pracctices drive everything else.  So the temptation to economic reductionism is that it operates on an unrealistically narrow conception of the economic.  Second, that is distorts our understanding of sphere of culture.  We have to probe more about the peculiarly complicated and often elusive concept of culture.  The systemic integration of myriad small individual actions into the workings of the socialinstitutions which appear autonomously to govern our lives.
   Common speculation about globalization process is that it will lead to single global culture.  We can see 'the unifying' effects.  Eurocentrism.  True, such sentiments could scarcely flourish in today’s liberal intellectual culture, sharply attuned as it is to the claims of cultural difference. But still we can take a lesson from Marx’s example.  This certainly remains true today.
   One clear implication of the discussion in the previous section is that both utopian and dystopian speculations about a single integrated global culture are not only generally ethnocentric in their origins.  This is not via the macro analysis of ‘globality’, but precisely in the opposite way, by understanding the effects of globalization as they are felt within particular localities.  We have to develop these thoughts via a brief consideration of the fate of cultural identity in a globalizing world.


2. I can recognize about the 'totalitarianism of culture.  Which was spread of western capitalist, paricularly American culture and it threat of a loss of distinct non-Western culture traditions.
Brand such as Disney, Coca-Cola, Marlboro, Microsoft, Google, McDonal's and so on.  And also like formulaic Hollywood movies, Western popular music genres and television formats appear to many as what the filmmaker referred to as 'a kind of totalitarianism of culture.'


3.  What is different as a 'Christendom' point between pre-modern and today? And how it is relative with globalization?



2010044728 Yirang Kim

Blog1. - What is the globalization?

W1 - What is the globalization?

by San Ha Lee 

(This posting was supposed to be posted last week, But at that time 
I was not invited, so I just emailed to you with this posting) 

1) Many scholars and sociologists tried to define 'Globalization' but they couldn't do that. Because there were so many, opinions against their argument also many people in developing countries are not willing to accept definitions of globalization deriving from more privileged societal contexts. Because of these reasons, most of scholars speak of globalization in the plural ways. They don't considered globalization as a single process. But Velho has explained 

that globalization is like an object, a perspective and a horizon. 

According to his paradigm, globalization may be understood as the direction in which the world considered as a whole is moving. 

 Globalization consists mainly of two major directional tendencies, increasing global connectivity and increasing global consciousness. 

 As has been already said, Globalization is related to many parts of society.  the major dimensions of globalization are divided into four parts, those are the cultural, the social, the political and the economic which are related human life.  And according to Wallerstein and the scholars, globalization has a particular form. 

They think of globalization as a form which has intents and purposes. 

 Glocalization is about global and local. These days, it is not at all unusual to find the local being regarded as the opposite of the global. 

 Defining globalization is not the way to one direction but 

considering plural aspects of society. 

2) First of all, I thought globalization is like vague concept. 

But I found globalization is not a simple thing. And also there are many issues about globalization like anti-globalization, glocalization, the form of globalization..etc. Actually I can't say that I understand all of them, but at least I found that globalization is a four- dimensional theory. 

3) I just couldn't fully understand the parameters of the general process of globalization and Glocalization. Still confused. 

2. What is the relation between culture and globalization?

2. What is the relation between culture and globalization?

1) Let’s begin with defining globalization. It is a multidimensional process of the economy, of politics, of technological developments. It also refers to the rapidly developing and ever-densening network of interconnections and interdependencies that characterize material, social, economic and cultural life in the modern world. Due to our use of communication technologies, we can easily think of why connectivity has been increased, and that increased connectivity helps us to understand the multidimensional complexity of the process. Although it’s pretty dominant for people to think globalizations in economic ways, actually it’s not ideal to think that way, because it operates on an unrealistically narrow concept of the economic and it distorts our understanding of the sphere of culture.

Then, what is culture for? It is to generate meaning in life, and the primordial context in which human agency arises and takes place. Thus, when we think about globalization and culture, it is useful to think how culturally informed ‘local’ actions can have globalizing consequences. When we look around our lives, we can find that cultural globalization has reflexivity on modern life. In other words, we can say that culture is a dimension in which globalization both has its effects and simultaneously is generated and shaped.

One of the most common speculations about how globalization has shaped culture is that a single global culture has been led as we can see the unifying effects of connectivity. It’s easy to find multinational companies and their brands everywhere. Some people think it is an uneven process and cultural globalization implies a form of cultural imperialism for this reason. However, we also need to know that there are some waves of anti-Western movements. The reason we have a picture of the world as a core feature of Western cultural modernity is that it originated the world from bible long time ago. Even when communists, like Karl Marx, anticipated a future world in which the divisions of nations have disappeared using a universal language, he combined this vision with a deeply Eurocentric attitude to other cultures.

Another, more promising view of cultural globalization is understanding the effects of globalization as they are felt within particular localities, and it’s called ‘deterritorialization’ which means the loss of the natural relation of culture to geographical and social territories. It is not simply the loss of the experience of a local culture, it’s more like localities thrive in globalization. We actually live with this concept by watching American TV shows at home, eating food from different countries, and searching Google instead of visiting public library. As we can see, one biggest factor of this phenomenon is our increasing routine dependence on electronic media and communications technologies and systems. This ‘telemediatization’ helps us to feel what it is to exist as a social being in the modern world. The speed of electronic communication takes our social relation and cultural values way, however, we can’t deny that it promotes a new sensibility of cultural openness, human mutuality and global ethnical responsibility.

Cosmopolitan cultural politics should be taken more seriously because it has a dilemma of universal human rights or cultural difference. Identities are aspects of the differentiating, institutionalizing and socially regulating nature of modern life and globalization has been perhaps the most significant force in creating and proliferating cultural identity.

2) It’s very interesting to know about pre-modern example of imagined biblical ‘globalism’. It shows me that people, even back in the long time ago, were interested in the world and outside of their country, and the way that they imagined the world was based on what they knew and what they believed. In addition, I imagined briefly the world where Karl Marx imagined, which as a universal language and integrated cosmopolitan cultural tastes. If that happens so, why would I travel for? That world wouldn’t be as exciting as it is now, so I hope each country keeps its own culture like now, although I am not against cultural globalization. I believe it surely is our mission to be unified not losing each color.

3) I want to know more whether deterritorializaion is different from glocalization, and if so, what would be different.